Since 100% (all 1 of 1) respondents back here asked for it, we shall put a (figurative) 2x4 upside the head of one Aaron Lee Wudrick, for no reason other than that he so thoroughly deserves it. And given the amount of utter bilge in Wudrick's piece, we're actually going to do this in more than one part, with the first part dissecting nothing more than the title of Wudrick's silliness and the first sentence. Seriously.
If He's A Liar, Then Prove It
Canadian Cynic bursts a vein over a relatively innocuous Marcus Gee Globe column that essentially says that Bush screwed up when he used WMDs as the justification for the Iraq war
And how much stupidity can one find in nothing more than the above? I'm glad you asked.
First, it's amusing that, according to Wudrick, I "burst a vein" back here in my condemnation of Commander Chimpy. Apparently, we liberals are not allowed to simply write passionately about something we believe in. No, apparently, if we have the fire, if we allow our feelings to pour forth, then we have invariably burst a vein, blown a gasket, popped a blood vessel or, in some other way, lost it completely and are just frothing maniacally at the mouth.
Apparently, there is nothing so idiotic, so asinine, so vile or loathsome that would allow us that kind of emotional expression. Nope, all it means is that, hey, we "burst a vein", and the residents of the wankersphere are entitled to call us on it; to "tut tut" about how we poor fuckers over here on the Left just can't keep a grip on ourselves.
The Right, however, seem to be perfectly within their rights to let loose with absolute rants aimed at people they don't like, referring to people like anti-war protestor Cindy Sheehan as a lunatic, barking moonbat or something equally pleasant. And, naturally, they are the only ones who, when they write about their favourite outrages, are allowed to be sickened, or appalled, or disgusted, or what have you.
See how that works? Only the Right can legitimately be horrified and disgusted, and only the Left can do things that are equivalently horrifying and disgusting. Is this a great deal or what?
And as for the second part of Wudrick's asininity in the above, we need look no further than the title: "If [Bush is] a Liar, Then Prove It." You know what? I'm going to admit it's virtually impossible to prove that, for the simple reason that the Right has redefined the word "lie" pretty much out of existence.
Recall, from back here, how barking moonbat (sorry, couldn't resist) Pat Buchanan defended Commander Chimpy's integrity (emphasis mine):
MR. BUCHANAN: [Bush] did not lie to them. The president emphasized, cherry-picked, hyped the causes for going, and set the others aside. That's not lying . . .
Got that? Bush didn't "lie" -- he simply emphasized, cherry-picked and hyped. Perhaps he was carefully selective. Perhaps he presented some facts and deliberately omitted others. Perhaps he embellished, distorted and misrepresented. But he didn't "lie."
Well, sure, if you can simply redefine the word "lie" to mean whatever you want, then of course you can make it impossible to prove that Bush "lied." Keep in mind that these semantic shenanigans are being presented by the same people who claim that Bill Clinton lied when he claimed he never had "sex" with that woman. Gosh, depending on how you define "sex," Clinton never "lied" either, did he? I believe the phrase is "hoist by your own petard."
In any event, at this rate, it's going to take about 17 posts to properly eviscerate Mr. Wudrick's dishonest bullshit but, hey, I'm a patient man. I have the time. And, trust me, there is much bullshit to be eviscerated.
BONUS TRACK: Well, apparently, I don't have an exclusive on Mr. Wudrick's attention. It seems like he wanders over here to get spanked on occasion as well. Some people clearly just like the abuse.
OH, MAN. Now look what you went and did. Dude, you are so fucked. Now it's personal.